On 11/29/13 11:31 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 29, 2013 10:40 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >> FB has some expectations that we probably can't change. If you look at >> the deploy scripts, some of them just don't seem necessary. Each of >>those >> expectations, especially the ones assuming that third-party code is in >>the >> same folder tree, makes us do more work in the installer and makes the >> customer wait longer to get up and running on a new SDK. If the other >> IDEs have fewer expectations or are willing to change their >>expectations, >> then those IDE vendors could say they have easier and quicker FlexJS >> integration. >> >> But for now, I think we have to meet FB's expectations, try to generate >>a >> lot of interest in Apache Flex SDKs of any flavor, and then see if any >>IDE >> vendors are more willing to be Flex-ible. >> >> -Alex > >I don't think I follow. Can you please elaborate what expectations that >other IDEs need to relax? I haven't tried any other IDEs. Someone should take a FlexJS "SDK" and try it and see if there are other funky assumptions (like FB expects an mx.filters package). But if the IDE vendors insist on co-location of AIR, FP and now GOOG, instead of also providing more flexibility like Apache Flex SDKs do today, then folks will never get out of having to run an installer to co-locate those dependencies. For example, FB has an Installed AIR SDKs section already. It could add an Installed GOOG and Installed FP section and project properties allow you to choose one, not assume that the one you want is co-located. > >I would rather we target our efforts towards supporting IDEs that have >some >level of active development in the future. I am not sure if that is the >case with Flash Builder. I think FB has a significant enough user base that we have to keep it in play. But there is a great opportunity for the other IDE vendors to show that they work better. -Alex
